As an example for an airborne body we will treat precision-guided munitions (PGM, smart weapon, smart munition). The operational requirement for increasing the stand off range in which it is feasible to launch a precision-guided munition from diverse platforms (aerial, land or maritime), compels attaining improved aerodynamics performance (execution) of the armament (more lift).
Implementing relatively large wings on the precision-guided munition and as an integral part of it, for attaining added lift over extended periods, is a known and recognized solution to this requirement.
Concurrently, there exists a requirement of using compact and volume saving packaging of such armament. For example—in order to enable an aerial platform, such as a fighter (combat plane) to carry a large and varied number of armaments crowded together while decreasing the aerial aerodynamic drag caused by carrying all of them on its top, or in order to enable inserting the armament into a canister that enables both storing and launching the armament in and from it, that is relatively small in its dimensions and thus enables to install several canisters one close alongside the other in a configuration of a “beehive” on top of a single launcher (that serves to launch the armaments from the canisters wherein the launcher is installed on a platform of whichever type).
Folding the wings along or on the sides of the armament and the deployment of the wings only after dropping or launching the armament, is a recognized technique for coping with this requirement.
Thus, in the period (epoch) that preceded the invention that is the subject matter of this application there were many publications that describe various mechanisms for deploying a pair of wings from airborne bodies, wherein in the folded state, before deployment, the wings are located one on the side of the other (in a tandem configuration) or one above the other, alongside the airborne body, and in the deployed state the pair of wings is propelled for being deployed on a plane (herein after the wing's deployment plane). See for example—U.S. Pat. No. 5,141,175, U.S. Pat. No. 5,671,899, U.S. Pat. No. 6,758,435, U.S. Pat. No. 7,185,847.
In the variety of known and recognized mechanisms for deploying a pair of wings as said, there exists one or more of the following drawbacks (disadvantages): non-efficient transmission function that detracts from the kinetic efficiency of the mechanism (the opening momentum can not be adapted to the varying load that prevails on the wings along their deployment path), inability of the wings deployment mechanism to cope and to provide an answer (a solution) to the requirement to divert and to vary the angle of attack of the wings (for example when it refers to a mechanism that is based on a cogwheels transmission), lack of ability to compensate for differences in loads that are exerted on the wings during the deployment cycle, structural complications that harm the possibility of low priced manufacturing and relatively simple assembling of the mechanism, or that the mechanism needs a complex and meticulous limited packaging design for enabling its integration in the airborne body.
Thus, in the period that preceded the invention that is the subject matter of this application, there existed a need for at least a mechanism for deploying a pair of wings from an airborne body, that would be simple and of relatively low cost for manufacturing and assembling, enable its generic installation on a variety of airborne bodies, without imposing meticulous packaging requirements, maintain an effective transmission function relatively to the loads that are exerted on the wings and given to be used also for deploying wings that vary their angle of attack.